hardinparamedic:mongbiohazard: HIS. It's funny how they get to just say whatever they want is god's plan, but god himself apparently doesn't get to tell us. Not only that, they can't actually show us the letter or email or whatever that god sent to them to tell them what he wanted from this whole situation. Being that he's supposedly a being of ultimate power and wisdom this must by definition be what he wanted - for them to be prosecuted for being dicks to people trying to patronize their business.

Something I've learned in my 28 years of existence is that God's will is strangely ALWAYS the same as what the person telling me what it is wants from me.

So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.

So can a pro-abortion bakery owner be forced to make a Right To Life cake? Can a black bakery owner be forced to make a cake for the anniversary celebration of the local KKK chapter? Can a Kosher bakery owner be forced to bake a cake for a Neo-Nazi party?

Regardless of one's position on gay marriage, this kind of lawsuit should be cause for concern to anyone who believes in free association.

MyRandomName:stpauler: HoustonNick: Libtard Creed - You must believe like I believe or be punished. No other beliefs will be accepted.

This is so disgusting.

The only real comeback for this is "fark you, you disgusting sad piece of flapping ass shiat".

You realize that you liberals are acting exactly the same towards religious people, right? Liberals always want respect but never respect the religious views of others. The irony is thick.

Are there really zero other wedding cake designers? This is about liberals trying to fark a religious person over. No more, no less.

I'll tolerate a religious person, until their bigotry sets in. Then, I will call them out on their bigotry. I don't care if you hide behind a Bible, a Koran, a Torah, or The Turner Diaries. I don't care what religion you are, or what you use as an excuse, but if you use that to shield yourself from your bigotry and hatred, then you are an idiot and the worst kind of asshole.

Phinn:So, you don't understand the differences among Forced Discrimination, Forced Non-discrimination and Freedom of Association.

Forced discrimination: separate water fountainsForced non-discrimination: TFA, and the main issue in TFTFreedom of Association: means you retain the right to associate (or not) in your capacity as a citizen with any groups you choose.

Freedom of association does not mean that a license-holder can deny use of the power granted by that license to another citizen for any reason. Just like I can fire someone (in right-to-work states) for NO reason but not for ANY reason, you're free to refuse service for NO reason, but not for ANY reason.

// and the same reason that people are telling the couple to "get over it"/"find a new bakery" are the same reasons I say to the bakers: "Shut up and bake"// even Abraham made food for heathens and idolators.

mwfark:They are forcing her to serve people she doesn't want to serve, or they're forcing her out of business. Yes - there is force involved, and that's a problem in a free society.

Oh man, it goes much farther than that. The government actually forces that poor baker to maintain sanitary conditions where she prepares food. Shouldn't she be free to prepare them however she wants? Don't even get me started on what all the government forces her to do if she hires someone. Why shouldn't I be allowed to employ an 8 year old for $0.25 an hour?

MyRandomName:The hilarious part is that you liberals always attempt economic boycotts to destroy those who disagree with you.

Like the liberals who boycotted Pepsi over some Jay-Z lyrics?Like the liberals who boycotted Dunkin Donuts over Rachel Ray's neckwear?Like the liberals who boycotted Starbucks over their decision to not be dicks to their employees?Like the liberals who boycotted government because Congress wouldn't pass the laws they wanted?

It is more than a bit disingenuous to claim moral superiority because you accept or approve of something. "Oh yeah, I think the things that I like are just nifty, and that makes me a good person", as it were.

The real moral winner is the fellow who does not approve, who does not accept, yet still tolerates the things that he does not approve or accept.

But the majority of the posters here would seem to demand that nothing short of full acceptance and approval of homosexuality will do. The amusing thing is that these posters don't view themselves as bigots -- they consider themselves quite open-minded.

Only a liberal would want the government to force someone to bake them a cake.

It's not about the cake. No one wants a cake made by someone who dislikes him. Obvi.

The medium is the message. The superficial message from the government here is: YOU MUST BAKE CAKES FOR THE GAYS.

But the superficial message is unimportant. It's the import of the communication that matters, the subtext. Here, the real, unspoken message is: WE CONTROL YOUR BUSINESS.

Arbitrary compliance with fake-rules is what Drill Instructors do to recruits, or what fraternities do to pledges. The government could make a rule that says, "No baking blue cakes on Thursdays." Or "You MUST bake blue cakes on Thursdays." Kind of how it goes from mandating racial discrimination one week, to prohibiting it the next.

The point is not the presence or absence of blue cakes. The content of the rule doesn't matter. The EXISTENCE of the rule is what matters, because having a rule is what defines the role of the "governed" as one of submission to authority.

In fact, the more trivial the rule is, the better it is for its use as a tool of symbolic submission.

SpectroBoy:CivicMindedFive: Fark is a weird place where Christians are the ultimate trump card.

Contrast this to the douchey-hipster article who wants government to prevent his neighbors from chopping down trees on their property because he likes those trees. The Fark brigade is almost universally against the hipster douche siding with private property rights.

Then there's this case, where a lesbian couple wants government to force a baker to participate in a gay wedding, and because the baker is Christian, the same people are ready to feed him to the dogs.

If there's ever a case where cops beat the snot out of anti-abortion demonstrators, the whole universe might divide by zero following the cognitive dissonance coming from fark.

The bakery is a PUBLIC accommodation. It is not a private property issue once you cross that line.

They could have created a private bakery and discriminated against all the icky gheys they want. But they didn't. They opened a public business and in doing so agreed to be bound by the law governing such a business.

Try to understand.

You try to understand. When you can walk into a bakery and buy a wedding cake off the shelf, it would be a public accommodation. Forcing a baker to participate in something he disagrees with is not.

These lesbians and their supporters as well as douchy-hipster-tree-lover both want to use the heavy boot of government to smash the face of those who don't agree with their views.

Mr. Right:So can a pro-abortion bakery owner be forced to make a Right To Life cake? Can a black bakery owner be forced to make a cake for the anniversary celebration of the local KKK chapter? Can a Kosher bakery owner be forced to bake a cake for a Neo-Nazi party?

Regardless of one's position on gay marriage, this kind of lawsuit should be cause for concern to anyone who believes in free association.

Bears repeating. These may not be among the special "protected classes", but all it would take is one lawsuit to change that. Can't say I want to see this, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Ultimately, going to another bakery would've been the best option. Instead, this couple has basically just intensified the divisiveness, rather than being the bigger people and moving on. They may "win", but many people who are distrustful of what they call the "homosexual agenda" will now feel all the more justified in their views, rather than having an example that may be used against them.

But then, I guess I can't say I'm surprised. Lawsuits are the weapons of the weak and get-rich-quick-schemers, and a jury trial for people who disagree with how others live their lives over a cake is exactly the kind of thing that makes people think of tyranny rather than education and open-mindedness.

Contrast this to the douchey-hipster article who wants government to prevent his neighbors from chopping down trees on their property because he likes those trees. The Fark brigade is almost universally against the hipster douche siding with private property rights.

Then there's this case, where a lesbian couple wants government to force a baker to participate in a gay wedding, and because the baker is Christian, the same people are ready to feed him to the dogs.

If there's ever a case where cops beat the snot out of anti-abortion demonstrators, the whole universe might divide by zero following the cognitive dissonance coming from fark.

MyRandomName:The hilarious part is that you liberals always attempt economic boycotts to destroy those who disagree with you. Yet if any person attempted an economic boycott of a minority business, you would be outraged. You are the people you complain about. You have simply switched skin color for politics and religion. You are no better. You at just as intolerant.

The hilarious part is that you think that something you make a decision on, such as religion (which is as protected, in fact more protected, than gender and sexual orientation) or political view, is somehow in any way comparable with something you don't make a decision on, such as sexual orientation or gender. In an effort to have some faith in humanity, I will pretend that you're just pretending to be this much of an obtuse piece of shiat, rather than face the likelihood that you are just that stupid and asinine.

And, once again, because you're too stupid to get it every time you're told, seemingly, you seem to be glossing over the fact that intolerance of intolerance is NOT bigotry.Tolerance of intolerance, however? There's a special word for that: Appeasement. It's a terrible thing which tends to lead to lynchings and genocide, but filth like you tends to pretend that your bigotry is somehow less bigoted because teh gays and brown people.

Now, on the subject, the Bakers knowingly broke state laws in their actions, and they are facing the consequences of breaking those laws. Now, if you don't believe in a law, civil disobedience, as the bakers practiced, assuming they were not just too dumb to research the laws governing their rights to own a public-serving business in that state (I know. Big assumption), you should not follow it, but part of civil disobedience is taking the consequences of knowingly breaking that law. They could actually maybe take this to the ACLU, which might actually help, as that law might be unconstitutional, for now.

Baz744:mwfark: So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.

In constitutional terms, no such right exists. The 10th Amendment says states have the right to police the health, safety, and morals of their residents; including by prohibiting immoral discrimination against homosexuals in provision of public services. I.e., states may permissibly punish evil people.

Guelph35:I don't agree with the bakery owner's decision, but when did sexual orientation become a protected class in regards to discrimination?

In May 2008, the passing of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, or Senate Bill 200, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status in housing and public accommodations.

Mr. Right:So can a pro-abortion bakery owner be forced to make a Right To Life cake? Can a black bakery owner be forced to make a cake for the anniversary celebration of the local KKK chapter? Can a Kosher bakery owner be forced to bake a cake for a Neo-Nazi party?

Regardless of one's position on gay marriage, this kind of lawsuit should be cause for concern to anyone who believes in free association.

None of those groups you listed are "protected groups", so, sure, discriminate away.

I feel the same way about Rosa Parks. Didn't she have anything better to do than waste her time biatching about seating on a bus. Just take yo' business to the back of the bus.

The hilarious part is that you liberals always attempt economic boycotts to destroy those who disagree with you. Yet if any person attempted an economic boycott of a minority business, you would be outraged. You are the people you complain about. You have simply switched skin color for politics and religion. You are no better. You at just as intolerant.

lennavan:mwfark: So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.

Someone is forcing this lady to run a cake business? Shiat, I missed that part of the article.

They are forcing her to serve people she doesn't want to serve, or they're forcing her out of business. Yes - there is force involved, and that's a problem in a free society.

lennavan:Phinn: What if this baker didn't want to bake a cake for vegetarians? Or the lactose intolerant? Or left-handed Twilight fans? Or teenaged death-metal retro-goths? What if this baker wanted to bake these people a cake but some law prevented her? Is there an ethical principle that addresses these bigotries?

None of those are protected classes of people.

Thank you for your lack of reading comprehension.

The whole part that you failed to quote was about how I was saying that asserting ethical propositions means that you have to assert meaningful ones. Justifiable ones. Principled ones. Otherwise, you're just talking about what you personally like, which means nothing beyond, well, you.

The real question is: Why are they protected classes? On what ethical principle does one decide how to define "protected classes" in the first place? (Vegetarians? Left-handed Twilight fans?) What is the justification for specially protecting a class in the first place, as opposed to having laws of UNIVERSAL application?

Theaetetus:You merely have to serve them as you would any other customer.

I understand that is your CONCLUSION, but I don't give a sh*t about your conclusions. I care about the ethical principle on which your conclusion is based.

"Because the Supreme Court said so" is also not an answer to the question of "why should there be a rule that says X."

Pretend that YOU are on the Supreme Court, and you not only have to cite prior decisions (which you can skip here), and you are expected to provide some ORIGINAL THOUGHT to the question put to you, and (more importantly) convince others that you are ethical and rational.

So, let's say it's 1955, and I run a bakery, and the government has passed a law MANDATING that I can't bake a cake for gays.

I'll be JAILED for it. But I want to bake for gays. I want the gay baking trade.

And, in response to this unjust law, I say things like, "The law is unjust. The government has NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY to prohibit me from selling cakes to gays, or to anyone I want. It's between me and my customers, and (literally) none of your business!"

And since we're all in 1955 and not just me, all of the FarkProg assholes posting in this thread would rise up and call me names and tell me to go live in the woods and cite "licensing" laws, to force me to follow their precious government's laws.

frepnog:it is morally wrong to force someone to do business with someone that they don't want to do business with.

No one is forcing the baker to do any business, period. The baker can close shop and run a church if they'd like. However, if the baker chooses to do business in the public sphere, then the baker is not allowed to discriminate. And it's morally right to take steps to stop discrimination in the public sphere.

Phinn:Let's see -- the government forces everyone to pay for roads, and it controls the entire road-building and city-planning business, thereby requiring everyone to use the government's roads just to live, and then points to people's use of government roads to JUSTIFY expanding the government's control over every other aspect of people's lives.

More like, "If the government's gonna force us ALL to pay for roads, etc, then we should ALL have the same access to them." Meaning a state-licensed business cannot refuse service to someone for reasons the state deems invalid. If you're going to exercise a power granted by the state, you exercise it according to state rules.

Does that help?

That way, if you're a private club (which specifically doesn't get a license, and is free to deny service to the darkies for their Curse of Ham, and the homos for the Curse of Ken Ham) (not really, but the rules are more relaxed), the state isn't supporting you and you're free to Christ it up with the other Church Ladies (and Satan) as much as you want.

CivicMindedFive:Then there's this case, where a lesbian couple wants government to force a baker to participate in a gay wedding, and because the baker is Christian, the same people are ready to feed him to the dogs.

You could've just posted "I don't know what I'm talking about" and saved a lot of words.

DubtodaIll:Witty_Retort: DubtodaIll: There's a line between being genuinely discriminated against in a way that is malicious and systematic and being a professional victim. Not being served your wedding cake is not a systematic discrimination. You've already gotten your legal rights for marriage, why make an example out of a solitary business and screw over the cakemakers?

When one of the bakery owners, Aaron Klein, discovered the cake was for a same-sex marriage, he called the couple "abominations unto the Lord" and made other comments that reduced the fiancée to tears, according to the complaint.

Thunderpipes:I don't get it. This is illegal, but a theater company firing the Running Man chick because of her political beliefs is okay?

GASP! It's almost as if different states have different laws and POLITICAL VIEWS ARE NOT PROTECTED, for the fourth time. You'd save yourself looking like a blithering idiot if you bothered to read the thread.

CivicMindedFive:Fark is a weird place where Christians are the ultimate trump card.

Contrast this to the douchey-hipster article who wants government to prevent his neighbors from chopping down trees on their property because he likes those trees. The Fark brigade is almost universally against the hipster douche siding with private property rights.

Then there's this case, where a lesbian couple wants government to force a baker to participate in a gay wedding, and because the baker is Christian, the same people are ready to feed him to the dogs.

If there's ever a case where cops beat the snot out of anti-abortion demonstrators, the whole universe might divide by zero following the cognitive dissonance coming from fark.

The bakery is a PUBLIC accommodation. It is not a private property issue once you cross that line.

They could have created a private bakery and discriminated against all the icky gheys they want. But they didn't. They opened a public business and in doing so agreed to be bound by the law governing such a business.

Headso: uh..this bigoted bakery couldn't even stay in business, what makes you think there would be an underground railroad funneling religious freak bigots to private bakeries?

It's already happening, especially with the religious whackjobs. The ranks of the Off-The-Grid bartering types is growing daily. They trade amongst themselves, have minimal interaction with outsiders. You don't need a bakery to bake a wedding cake. You do it in your own kitchen and barter it for ammo or other goods. I'm aware of it because I'm researching off-grid tech for my retirement farm, and getting magazines and visiting websites covering the subject matter.

To paraphrase the old Star Wars quote: "The more you tighten your grip, the more people will slip through your fingers"

TFA just motivates more people to cut loose from what they see as an increasingly heavy handed government, hell bent on imposing it's world view on the peons.

Stopping discrimination against someone trying to use a public supermarket, or doctor, or gas station is one thing, but coming down like a ton of bricks on a little bakery creeped out by TEH GAYS!! is seen as straight up government bullying.

Secret Private clubs, private trade networks are going to make a big comeback. And constricted trade resulting from that will degrade the prosperity of our society. The downward spiral steepens...

hardinparamedic:Phinn: When you define what's "protected" by arbitrary rules, then there's no reason "political belief" can't become protected.

Well, cry me a river, Phinn. Until such point that humanity evolves to where it does not make decisions based on inherent stereotypical judgements and racial demographics, protected classes will be necessary.

In reality, our entire country was founded on the ideas of protected classes - namely freedom from religious doctrine in Government dealings, and the idea that the majority's tyranny through "popular opinion" should not determine policy.

Forced discrimination was the law, right before forced non-discrimination became the law.

Our entire country was founded on one of the essential "rights of Englishmen" -- the freedom of association and its commercial application, freedom of contract.

That was later erased by control freaks pretending to be smarter than everyone else.

So your argument is that everybody must be treated equally but some groups are more equal than others?

His argument is there are groups that are protected and groups that are not. That's why it's okay to discriminate and only hire people with college degrees but it's not okay to discriminate and only hire white people.

mwfark:So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.

In constitutional terms, no such right exists. The 10th Amendment says states have the right to police the health, safety, and morals of their residents; including by prohibiting immoral discrimination against homosexuals in provision of public services. I.e., states may permissibly punish evil people.

Agree or disagree with the personal views of the business owner, this is a sort of tyranny. The guy has no problems selling cupcakes off the shelf to anybody. Making a wedding cake is not the same. It's an artistic endeavor. Should some scary dumb hick christian be able to go to a gay liberal artist and ask, nay, demand, he paint them a picture of gays being burned in hell and sue the crap out of him if he refuses?

Are there really zero other wedding cake designers? This is about liberals trying to fark a religious person over. No more, no less.

Yup. I remembered when I planned my wedding, actual planning was the furthest thing from my mind. I picked all of my vendors solely on how much we clashed and how horrible an experience the entire process of planning would be. I figured the entire process wasn't a headache enough, I needed to begin a crusade during one of the more hectic times in my life.

mwfark:So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.

These people thought they could run their business as they saw fit as well.

mwfark:So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.

Someone is forcing this lady to run a cake business? Shiat, I missed that part of the article.

hardinparamedic:Leishu: Are you going to give a real answer or continue to obfuscate, or, for my records, is that precisely what you do when your intentional inattention to fact backs you into a corner?

Something tells me that "control freak" is Phinn's passive-aggressive way of insulting anyone who won't let him do whatever he wants without consequences.

It has a way of irritating Progs, since they claim to oppose control freaks in other areas of their lives, and so they dislike being reminded of their own hyper-controlling urges.

Phinn: Leishu: In Phinnland, the only people who can violate rights are the Federal and State Governments.

Wrong again. This wrong-ness is becoming a real pattern for you.

Forcing someone to bake a cake for you is wrong, regardless of whether it's done by the State or by a random guy standing there with a gun.

Making shiat up again. This making shiat up is a pattern for you. Why don't you get that nobody forced anybody to bake a cake?People would take you more seriously if your posts had a basis in reality.

You are the one who thinks the inherent evil of forced cake-baking is somehow sanitized by the presence of a shiny badge.

And, once again, putting words in others' mouths and outright making shiat up. You are the one who thinks that Glenn Beck personally sends you letters every day telling you what a good little Libertarian you are and how proud he is of unmasking a liberal conspiracy to remove your god-given right to violate the rights of others, because it only counts as a true violation when the ebil G-men do it. Turnabout is fair play.

hardinparamedic:Phinn: The selection of particular criteria for this form of special protection is arbitrary and unprincipled.

To put it bluntly, Phinn: I don't care. Honestly, I don't care. You're entitled to your opinion, and it's cute and all.

Your posts this entire thread have been about spreading pseudo-intellectual libertarian knucklechildren on everyone else's faces because you think that if protections for people in the minority went away, or worse, the old neoconfederate "state's rights!" cry, that we would all live in a glorious, free market utopia where no one would be treated badly because of their race, religion, creed, or gender/sexual orientation.

If you honestly believe what you posted over and over in this thread is just, right, or ethical, then you're either delusional to the truth of human nature, or a brainwashed randroid.

Thanks for letting me know that your psychological defense mechanisms have shut down all of your capacity for rational thought.

Theaetetus:Please watch your language. I have extended you every courtesy. If you cannot participate in a conversation like an adult, then do not attempt to do so.

I humbly beg your pardon, kind sir, for the offense I have given. Please accept my sincere apology for my coarse demeanor, and my pledge to endeavor to refrain from such behavior in the future. Forsooth, we shall elevate the dignity of this discourse, henceforth.

Theaetetus:Once more, but only because I'm attempting to show you that adults can communicate, even with those they disagree with, without acting like assholes.

Aaaaand, we see that Theatetus is a fu*king hypocrite. Typical. Watch your fu*king language, fu*k-stick.

Theaetetus:Why there should be a rule that says that you cannot discriminate in the course of your public, commercial enterprise, is that in our society, we have collectively agreed that minorities should not be oppressed or punished, merely because they are a minority. Every person should have an equal right to participate in the public sphere, regardless of race, creed, color, gender, sexual orientation, etc., because it is through the contribution of different viewpoints and beliefs that our society advances.

Accordingly, when someone discriminates in public accommodations, they are preventing a fellow citizen from participating in that public sphere. Just as you have the right to free speech, you do not have the right to prevent others from speaking, merely because you disagree with their beliefs. Similarly, just as you have the right to engage in commercial activity, you do not have the right to prevent others from doing so, merely because you disagree with their race or gender.

Nor is it a valid answer to say "they can go to some other merchant," just as it's not a valid answer to say "they can go to some other public forum to speak." The same danger occurs - if the minority can only exercise their rights "elsewhere", then the majority may take their rights simply by occupying everywhere they can go.

So, in summary, the ethical principle that prevents you from discriminating against others in your commercial business is the same ethical principle that prevents you from silencing someone from speaking their mind, or prevents you from stopping someone from praying, or prevents you from shredding someone's petition to a court.

1. There is no such thing as "collective agreement." Collectives cannot agree or disagree. Only individuals can. In any event, to the extent that some powerful people have exerted their power over others by establishing a rule for others to follow, the fact that some arbitrary percentage of the population assents to this rule is of no ethical significance whatsoever. Majorities are no more presumptively ethical than an individual.

2. The way in which you define minorities is arbitrary and unprincipled. That's what I was getting at with the "left-handed Twilight fans" comment.

3. You are a disingenuous hypocrite when you claim that your defense of special protections is based on the protection of "different viewpoints," because it is precisely the opposition to gay marriage (a viewpoint!) that is the reason why these bakery people are being prosecuted! If you were sincerely interested in protecting the expression of "different viewpoints," then you would respect the right of people with different viewpoints to express them. Sort of obvious, really. But it is the very act of expressing a different viewpoint that, in your view, justifies the imposition of special penalties. Your attempt at justifying this law on such grounds is utterly and irretrievably contradicted and destroyed by your own argument.

4. Even though you have already self-detonated your argument, I will entertain the rest of your argument. Unfortunately, it's a jumble of nonsense bordering on a word salad. The act of refusing to bake someone a cake is in no way "preventing them from participating in the public sphere." Nowhere have you explained what the "public sphere" is. More importantly, there is no way to show how one bakery could ever accomplish such monopolistic prevention of such "participation," or how they have prevented the customer from obtaining a cake elsewhere, or from engaging in any other commercial activity with anyone else. This is simply untrue, even if it were possible.

5. Your analogy to the Freedom of Speech is nonsensical, By your argument, my closing my ears, or refusing to read someone's suck-ass blog, is an infringement of the speaker's First Amendment rights.

6. It's perfectly valid to point out that the customers can go elsewhere to get a cake, since that's (a) true and (b) the reason why your "public sphere" argument is utterly meaningless.

7. The only entity that is capable of exercising enough power to control "everywhere [someone] could go" is not this cake-baker, or any other individual, but GOVERNMENT. It is that organization that is the true monopolist -- it is the only organization that can occupy an entire territory, and impose its will on essentially everyone in it, at the same time. If monopolization of "viewpoints" and commercial decision-making is wrong, then it is the use of STATE POWER that is the only means of effecting such a monopoly and committing such a wrong.

8. If you can show in detail how, exactly, refusing to bake someone a cake is a form of silencing someone from speaking everywhere, praying everywhere, or shredding their court petition, I'll bake these lesbians a cake myself and deliver it personally.

In summary, your attempt at describing and defending the principles behind your position was pathetic.

The only ethical principle that actually affords people the rights you claim to want to protect (e.g., free will, range of choice, multiplicity of options, expression of differing viewpoints, etc.) is the Freedom of Association, or in this context, the Freedom of Contract -- the right of anyone and everyone to do business with anyone, or to decline to do business with anyone, by MUTUAL AGREEMENT.

It's kind of like the right to marry anyone you want, or not, as BOTH PARTIES (and only those parties) MUTUALLY AGREE to do so. The State cannot legitimately prevent, or compel, anyone to marry (or not) anyone else.

That is the ethical principle of true equality and free association, in action.

Your special protection of certain designated politically-favored classes is arbitrary and unprincipled.

"Using the power of the state to enforce morality pretty much never ends well."This is the fundamental truth which seems to be evading nearly all the debate on this issue and certainly the two parties involved in the initial dispute. "The Power of the State" is an enormous and callous blunt instrument with far reaching and potentially very damaging effects on everyone's fundamental freedoms.That power should only be invoked where real and tangible harm from one party to another can be demonstrated. Otherwise, when you invoke said power to settle what is essentially a dispute about who's moral code is more righteous, you are bound to be disappointed when the law eventually gets around to declaring your particular moral code as no longer valid.I hope this case goes to a jury. I hope they find both the plaintiff and defendant in flagrant violation of the most basic human response of common courtesy and sentence both parties to 90 days purgatory on a play ground with 5th grade children.This whole goddamned pissing match is over a frikin' pastry (and perhaps whose feelings were hurt the most)!The Bakers (who are no doubt bigots and worthy of scorn) could have respectfully asked the lesbian couple to seek another baker for their cake. But no, they had to stamp their feet and refuse to play in the fair world of basic commerce in order to protest their personal religious rights. Shame on them for being bigots and ignorant.The lesbians could have politely expressed their disappointment at such outdated and hateful views by boycotting the shop of any further business, like a normal rational person might do. If they wanted to add a heap of cold ashes to their righteous indignation they could have shared the story of their experience in any number of online blogs or rating services. But no, they had to prove their moral superiority to the whole world in a court of law by dragging those terrible spiteful Christians and their outdated moral code into the cold light of modern secular society and teach them a lesson. Shame on them for being arrogant and self absorbed.And now, because neither one of these two infantile parties had enough common sense to recognize this particular case of "whose moral code is superior" simply does not rise to the level any demonstrable harm to either party, we (the people who have to live with these two kindergartners that have not learned the most basic forms of personal conflict resolution) have to endure whatever new legal construct is devised to resolve their ridiculous dispute. A construct which must necessarily declare one party aggrieved and the other liable; which must necessarily limit someone's right to either free expression or free association.And for what......"The right to declare your personal moral code superior for appropriate pastry use." Really. If this ever sees the light of day in a court room we all suffer. Oh waite, it has already been litigated. I feel the pain of stupid now. It burns us and makes fools of us all. I shudder for generations that follow..............

JSTACAT:Isn't that like requiring that a Kosher restaurant offer pork & etc & hide the Star of David??

No. This is like requiring a Kosher restaurant that offers pork to a white dude also has to offer it to a black dude. Kinda like how a cake maker that offers cakes to a straight couple has to offer them to gay couples.

JSTACAT:Whatever happened to "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?"

Theaetetus:Do you think it would be morally right for a business owner to refuse to serve black people, on the grounds that he's a Mormon? And that it would be morally wrong for the government to say "serve everyone, regardless of race, or serve no one"?

I'll answer! To your first question, no, that would not be moral. To your second, yes, that would also not be moral. Using the power of the state to enforce morality pretty much never ends well.

notto:You don't have a religious right to work for a business that discriminates. You don't have a religious right to own a business that discriminates. You don't have a right to run a non-regulated law breaking business period. That is not a requirement of your religion so preventing you from doing it is not an infringement of your rights.

Nobody is stopping you as an individual or as an artist from making or not making cakes. If you want to sell them to the public, that is where your business hat and the laws associated with it take over.

This is established law, not something theoretical or that we are making up. Quit pretending that you can change reality just because you don't like it.

What part of the RFRA governs the selling of goods for profit? Please be specific.

That part I emboldened is the part where you're incorrect. The RFRA does not qualify what is, or isn't, part of belief. If you believe something is part of your religion, the government must take the 'least harm' approach in any contention of religious rights. Obviously, this guarantee does not vanish simply because one offers work for money.

So. This impacts selling goods for profit in that sales which require separate contracts on the part of the business to complete, and require expressive effort by the employees, must not run afoul of the RFRA any more than they can other employee protections. Neither can the government require those kindsw of contracts to be accepted by a business if there is some other way to achieve the desired end result.

This makes total sense. A Buddhist vegetarian caterer cannot be compelled to cook and serve you an Easter ham dinner, just because he serves lunch falafel sandwiches. A Jewish Orthodox photographer cannot be compelled to shoot wedding anniversary porn starring you and your wife, just because he offers pictures of architecture for sale. And in a reasonable world, Christian bakers not inclined should not be compelled to create a wedding cake for your gay wedding, just because they sell cupcakes.

Furthermore, adding a layer of corporate governance to that doesn't change the underlying rights accorded to the people working. The willingness to offer products/services for sale does not compel a business owner to offer every product/service for sale. Just because the ACLU offers legal services, it is not required to represent you in a divorce, and turning down your divorce case is not automatically discrimination if you're an impending gay divorcee.

notto:If they have a business license and a tax number and they are using them to sell goods to the public, the RFRA does not apply. They are not a religious organization or acting as an individual. A business does not have religious beliefs and it is the business identified and licensed by the business licence that violated the law and is being punished and fined.

The rights of the people working for the business cannot be infringed for the sake of the business corporate entity. This is especially true in small businesses where the staff and ownership is identical.

Even if we insist on the hard-line analysis of a separating the 'business owner's hat' from the 'baker's hat' in this case, the fact is that the couple's 'baker' aspect retains RFRA rights as employees. Since no other employee at that bakery at the time could serve in stead, the 'business owner' aspect should not be compelled to accept a contract to provide services it cannot.

You (and the lower courts of Oregon and Colorado, apparently) want to compel people to abgogate either their own Constitutional rights to their freedom to assemble or freedom of expression. That, in itself, is unconstitutional. Not to mention ridiculous.

ciberido:DubtodaIll: Headso: DubtodaIll: You've already gotten your legal rights for marriage, why make an example out of a solitary business and screw over the cakemakers?

Because these lezbos are uppity, breh

Just seems selfish to me.

Yes, of course. And I'm sure if we lived in a parallel universe where the roles were reversed, you wouldn't complain if businesses refused to serve you on the basis of your heterosexuality. You would consider it selfish to demand equal treatment.

I'd just go somewhere that wanted my money, certainly wouldn't call the press about it. But that's easy for me to say I'm not an asshole.

"Let them Eat Cake" With or without a marriage ceremony or license it's a DAMN PASTRY. Look, I understand that people have their little hang-ups over non-traditional marriages, but how does anybody ever get the idea that there is any conceivable deity that would condemn consider the sale of a dessert to the wrong people as reason for damnation.

Phinn:So, let's say it's 1955, and I run a bakery, and the government has passed a law MANDATING that I can't bake a cake for gays.

I'll be JAILED for it. But I want to bake for gays. I want the gay baking trade.

And, in response to this unjust law, I say things like, "The law is unjust. The government has NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY to prohibit me from selling cakes to gays, or to anyone I want. It's between me and my customers, and (literally) none of your business!"

And since we're all in 1955 and not just me, all of the FarkProg assholes posting in this thread would rise up and call me names and tell me to go live in the woods and cite "licensing" laws, to force me to follow their precious government's laws.

gerrymander:Dr Dreidel: More like, "If the government's gonna force us ALL to pay for roads, etc, then we should ALL have the same access to them." Meaning a state-licensed business cannot refuse service to someone for reasons the state deems invalid. If you're going to exercise a power granted by the state, you exercise it according to state rules.

Does that help?

That way, if you're a private club (which specifically doesn't get a license, and is free to deny service to the darkies for their Curse of Ham, and the homos for the Curse of Ken Ham) (not really, but the rules are more relaxed), the state isn't supporting you and you're free to Christ it up with the other Church Ladies (and Satan) as much as you want.

That's the problem with this ruling. A private contract to create an artistic expression is not -- and really, can never be -- subject to government license.

If the lesbians wanted a standard sheet cake with frosting letters, that would (I expect) have been well under the 'licensed business umbra'. But they didn't. They wanted a specialty cake for a one-time event, which required a separate contract. A separate contract to create a one-time piece should have been viewed as art, regardless of whether or not the government imposed restrictions upon the place where the art is created. And at that point, the rights enshrined by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act should have taken precedence.

This decision is wrong, as a matter of law.

The contract would still have the business as a signatory, and the business is beholden to state and federal law.

Just adding "as a matter of law" to your statements doesn't make them correct.

MyRandomName:Yet if any person attempted an economic boycott of a minority business, you would be outraged. You are the people you complain about. You have simply switched skin color for politics and religion. You are no better. You at just as intolerant.

I think the root of your problem is that you don't see a difference in the two scenarios.

In the first one, people are boycotting a business simply because it's owned by minorities.In the second one, people are boycotting based on actions taken by the business owners

Ant:MyRandomName: You realize that you liberals are acting exactly the same towards religious people, right? Liberals always want respect but never respect the religious views of others. The irony is thick.

So you think people should tolerate intolerance? Should we tolerate businesses who refuse service to black people?

the court of public opinion would convict those business owners and the business would founder.

Something further to think about: there are plenty of businesses that now legally discriminate against gender or sexual preferences - so how does something like 'curves' get a pass for basically discriminating against males while this cake business gets legally ordered to make a cake for a customer against the owner's religious preferences?

This is also something to be worked on.Thankfully, several states are making it discriminatory for Curves or other women-only gyms to only accept female clients. Men have brought lawsuits against women-only fitness clubs and have won.

The legality of gender-based businesses is really dependant on state laws, whereas sexual orientation is a federally-protected class of citizens. While women are a federally-protected class due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, men are not a federally-protected class. Which makes this largely dependant on state laws.

Which is why we have female-only fitness clubs, but no male-only fitness clubs.

Somaticasual:how does something like 'curves' get a pass for basically discriminating against males while this cake business gets legally ordered to make a cake for a customer against the owner's religious preferences?

I'm a super-Lib, and I just don't have the answer. On the one hand, discrimination against people of color is why this is an issue to begin with.

There are good reasons for a society to prohibit businesses from discriminating against minority groups. If such discrimination is permitted, who's to say it would just be one lousy bakery that does it? In some areas the bigots might be rare, but in others they could be the norm.

Do you really want to see towns where most businesses decide that they won't serve black people? Jews? (Insert any minority here). If the minority is too small to have their own "separate but equal" businesses to provide all the services needed, their other choice would be to leave. Leave town, leave the state... whatever it takes to get away from the bigots. Congregate in minority communities so that they can actually go to local businesses and get service.

Is that the kind of "freedom" a civilized society should have? I think not.

Phinn:Baz744: this bakery own remains free to believe homosexuality is immoral. He is not, however, free to discriminate against homosexuals in the public, commercial conduct of his business

The freedom of association says otherwise, but thanks for outlining the point where you think other people's freedoms end, control freak.

So what you're saying is you are fine with businesses discriminating against whomever they want. Don't want to serve black people at your restaurant? That's your choice. Because freedom!Congratulations, you're a despicable piece of shiat.

Phinn:barneyfifesbullet: It's just another day in Your Gay Indoctrination.

Only a liberal would want the government to force someone to bake them a cake.

It's not about the cake. No one wants a cake made by someone who dislikes him. Obvi.

The medium is the message. The superficial message from the government here is: YOU MUST BAKE CAKES FOR THE GAYS.

But the superficial message is unimportant. It's the import of the communication that matters, the subtext. Here, the real, unspoken message is: WE CONTROL YOUR BUSINESS.

Arbitrary compliance with fake-rules is what Drill Instructors do to recruits, or what fraternities do to pledges. The government could make a rule that says, "No baking blue cakes on Thursdays." Or "You MUST bake blue cakes on Thursdays." Kind of how it goes from mandating racial discrimination one week, to prohibiting it the next.

The point is not the presence or absence of blue cakes. The content of the rule doesn't matter. The EXISTENCE of the rule is what matters, because having a rule is what defines the role of the "governed" as one of submission to authority.

In fact, the more trivial the rule is, the better it is for its use as a tool of symbolic submission.

It's a very simple message: If you wish to conduct business in the state of ______________, then you must follow the rules of __________.

Why is this freaking you out so much? This is how business has been done since (at least) Hammurabi was king. Societies have always operated in this fashion.

Dr Dreidel:More like, "If the government's gonna force us ALL to pay for roads, etc, then we should ALL have the same access to them." Meaning a state-licensed business cannot refuse service to someone for reasons the state deems invalid. If you're going to exercise a power granted by the state, you exercise it according to state rules.

Does that help?

No. You still erroneously believe that "licensing" is like the Swiss Army Knife of justifications. You think it's like magic. You think it has god-like super powers. You think it's the magic word that unlocks all doors.

But "licensing" does not mean "empowering government to control everything you do." Where does this power to license come from? What are its limits?

Issuing a driver's license to you does not mean that government gets to abduct you and use you for medical experiments if they find you driving a car on one of their roads.

You still have not articulated a coherent ethical principle for your position as to how the State gets its legitimate power to use "licensing" as a proxy for any and all controls it wants to enact.

When asked if a government rule is legitimate, "because of the license law" is not a substantive answer. It's just a dodge. It just kicks the can down the road to the next question -- if the licensing power is legitimate.

Phinn:barneyfifesbullet: It's just another day in Your Gay Indoctrination.

Only a liberal would want the government to force someone to bake them a cake.

It's not about the cake. No one wants a cake made by someone who dislikes him. Obvi.

The medium is the message. The superficial message from the government here is: YOU MUST BAKE CAKES FOR THE GAYS.

But the superficial message is unimportant. It's the import of the communication that matters, the subtext. Here, the real, unspoken message is: WE CONTROL YOUR BUSINESS.

Arbitrary compliance with fake-rules is what Drill Instructors do to recruits, or what fraternities do to pledges. The government could make a rule that says, "No baking blue cakes on Thursdays." Or "You MUST bake blue cakes on Thursdays." Kind of how it goes from mandating racial discrimination one week, to prohibiting it the next.

The point is not the presence or absence of blue cakes. The content of the rule doesn't matter. The EXISTENCE of the rule is what matters, because having a rule is what defines the role of the "governed" as one of submission to authority.

In fact, the more trivial the rule is, the better it is for its use as a tool of symbolic submission.

This is what Randroid libertarians actually believe folks. Step right up and get your tickets to this mesmerizing display of carnival freak crazy!

Scorn him not for his derangements, my friends. He cannot help it. He was not born like you and I.

frepnog:Theaetetus: frepnog: A christian baker should be able to say no to a homosexual customer. the homosexual lifestyle is in direct contradiction to what the religion preaches.

they just should be able to.

Up until the 1970s, Mormons believed that all black people were sinners. Should they have been able to refuse service to black people?

yes. is it right? no. but freedom of religion is what it is, either we have it or we do not, and freedom of religion should trump your hurt feelings.

or just say fark it, religion means nothing, tax them same as any other business and get on with it.

... you do realize that we're talking about a baker, not a church, right? They are taxed the same as any other bakery.

And no, selling cakes is not part of their religion. They are absolutely free to go home and worship however they want in absolute freedom. They are not free to engage in a public business in a discriminatory manner, and then claim that they were really performing a religious service so that they don't have to obey the law.

notto:Itstoearly: So if one were to worship Hitler and I want to celebrate the anniversary of the Holocaust, and asked a Jewish baker to make me a cake, by law the baker would be required to do it?

Or better yet, if I ask a lesbian baker to bake me a cake that says "Lesbianism is morally wrong", she would be required to bake it for me?

Just want to make sure this swing both ways here.

Nazis or skinheads are not a protected class.Homophobes are not a protected class.You are adding specific content/messaging to the cake that makes it different then refusing to sell the same cake to one party and not another.

The need to stretch the analogy demonstrates why the argument against public accomodation laws are so silly.

Yep, if lesbian bakers said something like "We don't make cakes for breeders", then they would be breaking the law, by discriminating based upon sexual preference.

DubtodaIll:Oh the "you didn't build that" argument. We all pay taxes, we all pay for public infrastructure. Therefore we've already attributed our right to free use of infrastructure in that we have already paid for it. There is nothing owed beyond that point, especially not changing one's stance on debatable issues to reflect the popular flow of the time.

Isn't self-referential rationalization just spectacular to behold?

Let's see -- the government forces everyone to pay for roads, and it controls the entire road-building and city-planning business, thereby requiring everyone to use the government's roads just to live, and then points to people's use of government roads to JUSTIFY expanding the government's control over every other aspect of people's lives.

Brilliant.

It's like stealing someone's food, and then when you give it back to him, claiming that he owes you his life in perpetuity for feeding him.

CivicMindedFive:Fark is a weird place where Christians are the ultimate trump card.

Contrast this to the douchey-hipster article who wants government to prevent his neighbors from chopping down trees on their property because he likes those trees. The Fark brigade is almost universally against the hipster douche siding with private property rights.

Then there's this case, where a lesbian couple wants government to force a baker to participate in a gay wedding, and because the baker is Christian, the same people are ready to feed him to the dogs.

If there's ever a case where cops beat the snot out of anti-abortion demonstrators, the whole universe might divide by zero following the cognitive dissonance coming from fark.

freedom of religion, man. it is in direct opposition to general "freedom", but since america was basically FOUNDED on being able to worship the way one wishes, it is getting into some dark water.

A christian baker should be able to say no to a homosexual customer. the homosexual lifestyle is in direct contradiction to what the religion preaches.

they just should be able to.

however the law makes it wrong.

in this case, however, the gay people wanting the cake are wrong - even if the man said some "i hate the homogheys" stuff. because freedom of speech.

Itstoearly:So if one were to worship Hitler and I want to celebrate the anniversary of the Holocaust, and asked a Jewish baker to make me a cake, by law the baker would be required to do it?

Or better yet, if I ask a lesbian baker to bake me a cake that says "Lesbianism is morally wrong", she would be required to bake it for me?

Just want to make sure this swing both ways here.

Nazis or skinheads are not a protected class.Homophobes are not a protected class.You are adding specific content/messaging to the cake that makes it different then refusing to sell the same cake to one party and not another.

The need to stretch the analogy demonstrates why the argument against public accomodation laws are so silly.

Itstoearly:So if one were to worship Hitler and I want to celebrate the anniversary of the Holocaust, and asked a Jewish baker to make me a cake, by law the baker would be required to do it?

Or better yet, if I ask a lesbian baker to bake me a cake that says "Lesbianism is morally wrong", she would be required to bake it for me?

Just want to make sure this swing both ways here.

Do you understand the difference between an opinion and a trait?This is a threshold question before I begin to tell you what's wrong with your post. If you don't understand the distinction, you won't be able to understand the explanation.

insertsnarkyusername:Why don't these people just give a price quote that's say 30 percent higher than normal? Not big enough to be directly noticeable, it'll just seem like they are a higher priced bakery and no couple getting married is just getting quotes from one bakery and will most likely not go with the highest price quote. If for some reason they do decide go with your bakery then you've just made extra profit that can be donated to a christian charity if they really feel bad. Instead they have to attention whore about god.

They should have a right in America to not do business with them as long as they aren't getting any government monies.

They are getting public money via infrastructure and they are taking a spot in the market that could easily be filled by a business willing to follow the laws and accommodate the full community that provides them this infrastructure.

SpectroBoy:MJMaloney187: This is such BS. "Cryer and Bowman filed a complaint alleging unlawful discrimination."

Cryer and Bowman should have their attention-whoring as*es run out of town. Go to a different baker for crying out loud.

And Rosa Parks should have just sat in the back of the god dammed bus!!!!

High five, bro!

For your information, Boy, Rosa Parks violated the direction of the bus driver. That's why she was arrested. Back then, bus drivers were the equivalent of flight attendants. If you're on a plane and the flight attendant says, "move" - for whatever reason - see what happens when you refuse.

DubtodaIll:There's a line between being genuinely discriminated against in a way that is malicious and systematic and being a professional victim. Not being served your wedding cake is not a systematic discrimination. You've already gotten your legal rights for marriage, why make an example out of a solitary business and screw over the cakemakers?

To make an example of them and hopefully (like happened here) drive them out of business so that a business owner who will follow the law can take their place in the market. It really is a win for everyone.

If tax dollars are going to provide infrastructure for business, that business cannot refuse service to the community providing it the privilege of using that infrastructure. Having a business that is a public accommodation and that uses public resources is not a right, it is a privilege bound by laws, licencing, and codes.

It is just these bigoted cakemakers that got 'screwed'. Law abiding cakemakers will take their place.

Phinn:Baz744: In constitutional terms, there is no right to discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of public services.

There are no "public services." That's an arbitrary construct,

These are actually incompatible thoughts. Either "public services" exist, or they do not. You've asserted here first that they do not exist, and second that they exist as an "arbitrary construct."

There is most certainly a legal designation for the public provision of goods and services in commerce. If you sat down in a law library, you could, with sufficient skill, parse out with some precision its full contours.

"Public, commercial services" certainly exists as a coherent concept, independent of the words used to describe it. They would exist whether or not we called them such. Unless you mean to say gravity did not exist before we identified and named it.

You may actually be correct that it was invented as a legal designation for the purposes of justifying control--though not over peoples' private lives, but rather over their public, commercial lives. And it certainly wasn't invented solely to justify control for the sake of control. Most likely it was invented to justify control over the provision of public services for the purpose of regulating some social evil, real or merely perceived.

And that's what makes you giddy -- control.

There two things in this world that actually make me giddy: 1) a certain female partner in an internationally renowned intellectual property law firm, and 2) quality time with my little boy.

Chummer45:Phinn: Baz744: In constitutional terms, there is no right to discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of public services.

There are no "public services." That's an arbitrary construct, invented for the purpose of justifying the assertion of CONTROL over people's private lives.

And that's what makes you giddy -- control.

Oh jesus christ give me a break. So are you an anarchist, or do you just think that the government is "tyrannical" whenever it does something that you don't like?

I really wish I could drive 200 mph on the highway. But the government, drunk on CONTROL, has told me that I can't do that. When will this tyranny end? Why can't I dump raw sewage in my front yard - ARE WE NOT A FREE SOCIETY?!?!??!

I was on board with your reasoning until this....

Chummer45:Phinn: Baz744: In constitutional terms, there is no right to discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of public services.

There are no "public services." That's an arbitrary construct, invented for the purpose of justifying the assertion of CONTROL over people's private lives.

And that's what makes you giddy -- control.

Oh jesus christ give me a break. So are you an anarchist, or do you just think that the government is "tyrannical" whenever it does something that you don't like?

I really wish I could drive 200 mph on the highway. But the government, drunk on CONTROL, has told me that I can't do that. When will this tyranny end? Why can't I dump raw sewage in my front yard - ARE WE NOT A FREE SOCIETY?!?!??!

What a governement drunk on control might look likeWhat all cakes in the future will look like:

There's a line between being genuinely discriminated against in a way that is malicious and systematic and being a professional victim. Not being served your wedding cake is not a systematic discrimination. You've already gotten your legal rights for marriage, why make an example out of a solitary business and screw over the cakemakers?

Phinn:hardinparamedic: mark12A: Can't wait for the Neo-Nazi's to show up en masse on Fark preaching their crap, but private business owner Drew will be prevented BY LAW from throwing them out because DISCRIMINATION.

/It's a comfy bed you Libtards are setting up for yourselves.//and yes, people WILL set up private bakeries, restaurants, etc. if this shiat gets much deeper, and America Balkanizes further....

Political belief is not a protected class.

When you define what's "protected" by arbitrary rules, then there's no reason "political belief" can't become protected.

If by "arbitrary rules" you mean "the legislative process," then sure. If you can get enough votes that can certainly happen.

This is a really tough issue, honest. I'm a super-Lib, and I just don't have the answer. On the one hand, discrimination against people of color is why this is an issue to begin with. If people weren't so thick-headed and backwards and would just love others 1/10 as they much as they love themselves this would all be over.

But that's never going to happen, people will always be tribal haters. So the question is then should we force business owners to serve people they don't want to serve? Logically no, people should be free to serve who they wish. It's their business, they are on the hook for P&L, it's their personal fortunes on the line, they have the most interest in doing right.

On the other hand, it was jag-offs like this who helped enforce Jim Crow laws. Their actions helped foster a separate and unequal society. If we allow people to openly discriminate then aren't we encouraging a return to this?

I do think that pharmacies have an obligation to sell to anyone. When it's someone's health in question, discrimination has to go. It just can't be. If you don't like selling things you don't feel are morally appropriate then I suggest another line of work. Would you be a paramedic and refuse to help drunk drivers?

The only action I see is the couple takes their business elsewhere and makes it plain and loud and clear to everyone what the bakery was up to. Let the free market and the neighborhood sort this one out. Not everything in the world needs a supreme court ruling.

iheartscotch:I'm all for any business to refuse service; but, these guys did it the wrong way. Should have said that they were booked solid and couldn't possibly make another cake.

I'm going to agree in a limited way on principle, but this is a cake after all. Its not required by law to stock same sex figures. Refusing to at least substantially complete a "wedding cake" is where they went wrong. They could have said. "We'll build you a cake like any other cake, but you'll have to provide your own topper if none of ours are suitable".. I reluctantly support the principle of someone not providing spousal benefits IF the state you operate in does not recognize them. The same for insurance provided birth control since the cost of buying your own generic pills at a pharmacy washes out from the cost of insurance anyway.

This is JUST A DAMN CAKE. Make it and forget about it. I've had enough years in retail management to know the time to argue with a paying customer is just about NEVER. Obviously the cultural mores of Oregon seem to be that the community supports the lesbian couple. I'd say that there must be other bakers that they could have gone to if their business took a hit financially. It might have been enough to just hit them with public awareness

/BTW its quite common that one cannot legally provide food for sale out of a residential kitchen. A visit from the local health board might have been the last nail in the coffin.

Meh, these bulls are just being martyrs. Anyone else would have gone home vented on their shiatty blog/Facebook, left a bad review on Yelp, and then found another baker. But in America when your feelings are hurt it's like someone just handed you a lawsuit lottery ticket for you to scratch off

That is an incorrect interpretation obviously. As we all see, the Bible is misused and misquoted too much. Boil it all down, God loves the sinner and hates the sin. So do not contribute to the sinning action of others.

Phinn:Baz744: this bakery own remains free to believe homosexuality is immoral. He is not, however, free to discriminate against homosexuals in the public, commercial conduct of his business

The freedom of association says otherwise,

Can you direct me to any jurisprudence holding that a "freedom of association" protects a right to discriminate against anyone in the provision of public services?

but thanks for outlining the point where you think other people's freedoms end, control freak.

In constitutional terms, there is no right to discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of public services. My position that a person's public, commercial conduct is permissibly subject to state regulation is consistent with two centuries of American jurisprudence.

Your baseless, unprovoked personal attack reveals more about your character than mine. Are you man enough to apologize and acknowledge wrongdoing?

notto:totallyfubar: It is a religious belief they are standing for, that homosexuality is wrong. Comparing that to segregation is apples and oranges. The bible never said blacks were not equal, it says the opposite.

Segregationists used the Bible to justify their actions.

It's remarkable how throughout history, the conservative movement has pretty consistently used the bible as its excuse for supporting really bad laws, like (among other things) slavery, alcohol prohibition, Jim crow laws, and now bigotry towards gays.

Also, remember when Rand Paul thought the civil rights act should be declared unconstitutional - because in his mind the "freedom to run your business as one sees fit" trumps the right of black people to be treated with respect and dignity? The whole "economic freedom" and "states rights" nonsense is always invoked by conservatives as their excuse for opposing policies. It lets them say "I oppose the civil rights act because states' rights," so they can avoid saying the real reason why they oppose it - because they're racist a-holes who think that the "right" to discriminate is a "right" worth defending.

hardinparamedic:mark12A: Can't wait for the Neo-Nazi's to show up en masse on Fark preaching their crap, but private business owner Drew will be prevented BY LAW from throwing them out because DISCRIMINATION.

/It's a comfy bed you Libtards are setting up for yourselves.//and yes, people WILL set up private bakeries, restaurants, etc. if this shiat gets much deeper, and America Balkanizes further....

Political belief is not a protected class.

When you define what's "protected" by arbitrary rules, then there's no reason "political belief" can't become protected.

Dr Dreidel:MyRandomName: The hilarious part is that you liberals always attempt economic boycotts to destroy those who disagree with you.

Like the liberals who boycotted Pepsi over some Jay-Z lyrics?Like the liberals who boycotted Dunkin Donuts over Rachel Ray's neckwear?Like the liberals who boycotted Starbucks over their decision to not be dicks to their employees?Like the liberals who boycotted government because Congress wouldn't pass the laws they wanted?

totallyfubar:It is a religious belief they are standing for, that homosexuality is wrong. Comparing that to segregation is apples and oranges. The bible never said blacks were not equal, it says the opposite.

MyRandomName:You realize that you liberals are acting exactly the same towards religious people, right? Liberals always want respect but never respect the religious views of others. The irony is thick.

As Scientology has proven, any drunken jackass can make up their own religion based on a bar bet. So here, I just made up a religion were no moronic rednecks are allowed to drink at my establishment. I'll probably go broke but I'll have made my point.

That doesn't even make sense. Is there some liberal rule that says so and so has to run a bakery?

Also, all the replies to folks indicating that the bakery owner's freedoms are being abridged who respond with the 'whites only' stuff; they don't care. In their perfect world, Jim Crow would be alive and well.

So, you don't understand the differences among Forced Discrimination, Forced Non-discrimination and Freedom of Association.

That doesn't even make sense. Is there some liberal rule that says so and so has to run a bakery?

Also, all the replies to folks indicating that the bakery owner's freedoms are being abridged who respond with the 'whites only' stuff; they don't care. In their perfect world, Jim Crow would be alive and well.

MyRandomName:lennavan: cryinoutloud: I think I'd just take my business elsewhere.

cryinoutloud: But I have a life of my own to take care of.

I feel the same way about Rosa Parks. Didn't she have anything better to do than waste her time biatching about seating on a bus. Just take yo' business to the back of the bus.

The hilarious part is that you liberals always attempt economic boycotts to destroy those who disagree with you. Yet if any person attempted an economic boycott of a minority business, you would be outraged. You are the people you complain about. You have simply switched skin color for politics and religion. You are no better. You at just as intolerant.

WTF are you on about?

I rarely see good ole boys in minority run small businesses and zomg color me surprised!

Onkel Buck:iheartscotch: I'm all for any business to refuse service; but, these guys did it the wrong way. Should have said that they were booked solid and couldn't possibly make another cake.

That may have worked but you know how some folks like to play the victim. The couple could have went home and called the bakery posing as a straight couple and then GOTCHA! The bakery owner was farked once he unlocked the door that morning. Decided to be a bigoted asshole.

If god was really on everyone's side who claims it, we wouldn't have gay marriage anywhere, the 10 commandments would be on every courthouse wall and storekeepers would be shot for saying "happy holidays"

Suck it, everyone who wears their religion and/or their politics on their sleeve.

While I think the bakery is retarded, this is pretty stupid. It is a farking wedding cake. If the bakery had "messed up" the order and made it a man and woman on the cake, would it still be illegal? If so, are screwups then illegal?

mwfark:So a lady is forced to do something against her will in a supposedly free society, and some people call this progress. I call it tyranny, and while I personally disagree with her position, I do think she should have the right to run her business as she sees fit.

They are free not to run the business. Don't want to follow business regulations? Don't go into business for yourself.

Onkel Buck:iheartscotch: I'm all for any business to refuse service; but, these guys did it the wrong way. Should have said that they were booked solid and couldn't possibly make another cake.

That may have worked but you know how some folks like to play the victim. The couple could have went home and called the bakery posing as a straight couple and then GOTCHA! The bakery owner was farked once he unlocked the door that morning.

decided that discrimination is an expression of faith

Come on, hundreds of non-bigoted bakers are not being sued right right now.

iheartscotch:I'm all for any business to refuse service; but, these guys did it the wrong way. Should have said that they were booked solid and couldn't possibly make another cake.

That may have worked but you know how some folks like to play the victim. The couple could have went home and called the bakery posing as a straight couple and then GOTCHA! The bakery owner was farked once he unlocked the door that morning.

I think I'd just take my business elsewhere. So how long now has this guy been running their lives? Oh, for a year now, and they're not done yet. it must be nice to have the luxury of being outraged for that long. But I have a life of my own to take care of.